My older millennial hubby and I keep saying that we all agreed as a society to leave some of these trends behind and these dang kids are bringing back the worst parts of the fashion! I see more mullets/rat tail hair cuts the last couple of years and just why?! šš
Man, mine had like 15 second skip protection! Funny though, there was a hill going up to my parents house that was just long enough, and just bumpy enough, that it would skip at the very top of the hill every time!
Fashion is marketed in a cycle in order to keep people spending money. Trends have to last just long enough that heavy spenders will buy into them multiple times, which generally lasts 7-10 years, but the money train eventually stops because everyone has bought enough of item "x", everyone that would get haircut "y" has it.
So then the industry has to rotate back to the fashions they've been telling you for the last decade were a horrible mistake of the past, because everyone threw things outs, and they need you to start buying again.
Ball length shorts was something I thought was left in the 80ās and now in 2023 they r back.. itās like they purposely took worst trend from every gen
In Gen Z defense Millennials was bringing back 70s and '80s fashion pieces, in which all the people who live through that once already said "PLEASE!! No!!! DON'T!!!"
It is a never-ending cycle. š
Millennials brought back good fashion. Gen Z is trying to revive the dreggs! You didnāt see millennials trying to revive the shag haircut, which is the equivalent of what gen z is trying to do.
Okay. In all honestly, I started googling in order to prepare for an all out internet war. And the first thing I found was a million articles about this:
https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/sachel-haircut-trend-the-rachel
The fucking sachel. I call a truce because I lose. We all lose. The universe loses.
I'm Millennial and I don't really agree.
I loved the late 2000s fashion *at the time*, as young people often do get sucked into trends, but in hindsight... lordt. Those fried emo bangs, split ends galore from all the straightening, the super skinny jeans hardly anyone could pull off, the 10 stacked beady bracelets on either wrist for no reason... yeah I was *tragic* babes š
It's why I don't really get on Gen Z for their "ugly" fashion. I do think they look a mess, low-key, but I view it almost like a rite of passage for young people go through this experimental fad fashion era.
This is mostly a joke. Iām not making fun of Gen Z so much as cringing at the shit my past self wore. You get old enough it starts to feel like the younger generation is trolling you by making you relive your worst fashion choices on repeat by snarky younger versions of yourself.
Aww ok, sorry I jumped the gun a bit haha
I agree it does feel like that.
On a slight tangent I was talking to my Gen Z friend at work last week (she's 21) and she was talking about how her and her friends are going to some nostalgic 2010 music night at a club...
I might have fainted a little š They're really nostalgic romanticising music that came out when I was 17, I'm officially old moment.
Millennials absolutely did not bring good fashion.
Peplum tops? Ultra-low rose jeans? Jeggings? Layering three tank tops on top of each other? Chunky bib statement necklaces in pastels? Chevron everything?
I said they brought good fashion from pervious decades back. Our original choices were massively questionable, hence the comments about 90s fashion being trash.
What did we bring back? Iām thinking of everything I wore / my friends wore as a teen and Iām drawing a blank.
Super thin, extra long sleeved shirts, side bangs going across the face, bodycon dresses, baguette purses, owl everything, ponchos is atrocious color combinations (I had two- one was mint and brown (why was this color combination so popular) and the other was red, orange, pink, and yellow).
Any help would be appreciated because I canāt think of it.
Ballet shoes? I guess thatās one.
You have to remember that millennials span from 1983-1995 we had a pretty wide range of fashion in the generation. Thinking from my 90s childhood cowboy boots, micro-minis, bell bottoms came back into style for a bit, we were big into 60s band t-shirts, acid wash jeans, tie dye. There was a whole host of things millennials brought back. But as I said to someone else Iām not being entirely serious here. Iām laughing about Gen Zs affinity for making me relive some of my worst fashion moments.
I was born in 89, so pretty close to right in the middle of the generation. I also leaned skater / punk as a teen so while I personally wore tons of band shirts, bell bottoms, chuck taylors, mini skirts (which I used to wear over jeans way too often or with the craziest fishnets) etc that was more of me being into the alternative fashion / a subculture than as a staple of what the general fashion of the generation.
I wouldnāt equate my high school outfit of a military jacket, Jim Morrison shirt, paired with my torn up jeans, and vans as a staple if Millennial fashion even if I wearing it as a teen in mid2000s.
I think subcultures are their own thing that transcend generations.
I dunno, thereās something that makes me really happy when I see kids walking around in the dumbest, most unflattering outfits ever. Itās like theyāre dressing in whatever they think is fun instead of whatever will make people want to fuck them.
Might me waiting a bit on those. Those had their come back in like 2012 back around the same time those ugly geometric Zack Morris Sweaters made a comeback.
Not that I know of. Iām pretty sure both are supposed to take place in the 90s. There is nothing super 2000s esq about the movies that makes me think they changed the time period. I could be wrong though.
I think thereās just some confusion because the vehicles shown are definitely 2000ās vehicles but it could just been a decision where the director said screw it movie is for kids they wonāt care if the cars arenāt the right time period
So are the books tbh. It's always been vaguely annoying to me how the HP fandom has reverse engineered an accurate timeline for the entire series based on one throwaway reference from Nearly Headless Nick's deathday cake when clearly the later books aren't meant to be some sort of 90s period piece at all (case in point: Dudley's Playstation).
The Potter's gravestone says they died 1981 which would mean it's the 90s. The cars, a newspaper and TVs in the background say it's the 2000's. So it's whatever due to lazy directors.
In the half-blood prince the deatheaters destroy the millennium bridge which was completed in 2000, so Iām not sure how the films could be set in the 90s.
It does appear the movies are supposed to be set in the 90s but the level of mistakes is actually extremely poor and almost amateur, which seems to have created this widespread confusion.
I'll just pretend it's in an alternative hybrid universe where 2000s technology was created in the 90s.
The movies aren't set in the 90s, they're roughly set in the years they're released. I think "officially" they're not set in any particular year but in OOTP the boys in the Griffyndor common room are listening to The Ordinary Boys, and in HBP the deatheaters take out the Millennium Bridge which was opened in 2000.
And Dudley's primary school certificate says 2001 on. At the end of the day it's irrelevant to debate it because there is conflicting evidence as you point out. However if I *had* to say one way or the other, there's more evidence of it taking place in "present day" at the time of the movies' release than the 90s, even if we disregard things like clothes, haircuts and technology.
I think all the Weasleys wore hand-me-down dress robes. Ginny wore one of Molly's, the Twins wore Bill and Charlie's. Only Ron had to wear the robes from the Wizarding thrift store. Why couldn't he wear Arthur's?
You canāt hand something down if you still wear it.
Arthurās dress robes from school could also have become Charlieās. Making them gen 3 when the twins got them.
Arthurās dress robes from more recent, is like his church suit equivalent. Canāt give that away for sophomore homecoming.
No, Mrs. Weasley bought them secondhand:
>āBecause ... well, I had to get yours secondhand, and there wasnāt a lot of choice!ā said Mrs. Weasley, flushing.
the only dress robes they got right for the Yule ball was Ron's because his were supposed to be ugly.
edit: But it was the ninties and she was thirteen of course it was going to be ugly as all hell what do you expect from a child
you're not completely wrong, not sure why you're being downvoted, I don't know much about fashion, so I'm not gonna comment on that. But the Technology in the movies is a real thing, I specifically remember the big screens in Deathly Hallows.
Usually I ignore any inconsistencies in the movies, because to me they're no more than adaptations, not canon in my eyes. But the post was referring to the dress shown in the movies. So it's only fair to talk about this from the perspective of the movies
Because people are basing movie Ginny's appearance off the books. Which yes, there is that to consider but literally if they watch the movies and look at the technology muggles use a lot of it wasn't invented or in popular use until the early 2000s. Hell even the filmmakers confirmed the movies take place from 2001 onward just for simplicity. Yes I know the books take place from 1991-1997.
https://www.looper.com/297033/how-the-timeline-differs-between-the-harry-potter-books-and-movies/
Here is some sauce for people who wish to read.
[James and Lily died in 1981 in the movies, too.](https://i.imgur.com/mZWgPUb.png) Last I checked, it wasn't Hogwarts University where 21 year old Harry Potter is starting graduate school, so the movies are definitely set in the 90s.
Ginny's dress is ugly either way, though. XD
It's really just the small details like that don't matter. It doesn't *matter* that the Dursleys TV is a flat screen in the movies despite being set in the 90s, just like it doesn't matter that in the books Dudley had a Playstation months before they released irl.
With the latter you could argue Vernon imported it. But for the sake of this conversation, I'd argue these details do matter because it shows the movies, which we already know don't follow the books by the letter and thus are somewhat their own continuity, that the timeline of the movies are different. It's irrelevant for the sake of the books, but in the movies this explains Ginny's dress, the hair styles of the cast, their muggle attire, and so many other small details that do not adhere to the books.
You have given u/venator1995 a Reddit Sickle.
u/venator1995 has a total of 0 galleons, 1 sickle, and 0 knuts.
____________
I am a bot. See [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/harrypotter/comments/jnbo49/hi_i_created_the_bot_youve_been_using_to_give/) to learn how to use me.
Nah...The ugliest dresses were worn by the Patil sisters. Like, couldn't they hire some Indian designer for the Yule Ball scene? They found the plainest dresses that could be worn by someone in an Indian household.
No fr it wasn't enough for them to colonize our homeland they had to insult us with their idea of our fashion too. Their dress robes in the books sounded so pretty. We were robbed.
No, and not just because it's very sweet looking. I think collars and buttons give a little... authority? status? I struggle to find just the right word.
Edit: Regality?
Myth born out of all of the anachronisms. James and Lily's grave in DH says they died 1981, it absolutely takes place in the 90s.
None of the anachronisms were at all important(even the millennium bridge is easily explained by the book bridge not being real. The important part was it was a muggle bridge, not which bridge specifically) to the plot. They weren't even merely *unimportant* to the plot, they were totally and completely irrelevant plot wise.
By this logic the book Goblet of fire *starts* in 1995 and ends in 1996(instead of 1994 and 1995, respectively), seeing as dudley had a playstation. Which is obviously not the case.
It's a fictional story where a secret society of wizards exist; it's not a plot hole for its technology to not be 100% accurate to the non-fictional real life version of the time period.
Exactly, the books don't take place in our reality, so little anachronisms are super easy to explain. I think the main point of them taking place in the 90s is just so they don't have to deal with the internet and cell phones becoming mainstream anyhow.
To be fair, I thought most of the dresses from the Yule Ball were ugly lol š¤·š»āāļø I never got the obsession over Hermioneās because:
1. The film crew couldnāt even be bothered to read the one sentence that said they were periwinkle and
2. The material and the colour look like the drapes your grandmother had in her house from the 70s/80s.
They really were all... not good.
And I recall an interview with the designer who went all proud "yeah Cho's dress is white, an Asian mourning color, to foreshadow Cedric death".
They all did so little research to make "culturally inspired" dresses and then it overwhelmingly ended up super on the nose.
Okay, fashion nerd here, the color palette is very flattering on her, but the neckline kills the dress. Something with little ruffle sleeves instead of that Taco Bell neckline would look much better, specifically off the shoulder. Mint and pastel pink look lovely together (if itās the proper shades) but I think pastel yellow and pastel purple would look better together. Also, the bright pink band is too bulky and should either be thinner or removed, maybe with a fabric flower made out of the excess. Also, sheās thirteen and it was the 90ās, but that doesnāt excuse the awful neckline.
Yellow and purple go really well together since theyāre complimentary colors on the color wheel, but I can understand that not a lot of people can pull it off, but I think that she could
Eh. It doesn't look totally inappropriate for a 13 year old in the mid-90's. Especially for a society that is a bit more old fashioned in the clothes department. It's got 50's vibes, so maybe it's supposed to have been Molly's.
To be fair, GoF was probably the Movie with the most aweful costumes overall... In the first task the supposed wizzarding flying ropes are clearly visible to be a cheap raincoat type of garment, this trend started with the PoA decision to not have school ropes on Hogwarts grounds and continued in GoF...
When you are lower middle class like Ginny you can say āIām never wearing thatā but it doesnāt matter at all, you have to wear whatever you have to wear. I wore a piece of extension cord as a belt for a while.
Compared to the dress worn by their Great-Aunt Tessy, this dress was beautiful. Compared to Fleur or Hermioneās dress, yeah this dress isnāt as great. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder and thatās a lot of eyes.
[She pull up lookin like this](https://eu-images.contentstack.com/v3/assets/blt781c383a1983f673/bltad4620b2c52b41ab/621c905ca4eb2753a95827f4/StrawberryShortcake.jpg?width=734&auto=webp&format=png)
Someone on the design team thought "what if we dressed her like a 50's housewife?"
Meanwhile Draco gets a book accurate look and is invisible outside of him being in the dance crowd on occasion.
Just an awful adaptation. For more reason that dresses certainly, but their low effort look just adds to the negativity
I always really hated Cho's dress. She looks like an old japanese lady and the silver makes me offended because of the bronze vs silver in ravenclaw.
#bringbackthebronze
I think they deliberately made all the girls wear horrible dress to make Hermione shine out more?
The Patil sisters also wore _very_ stereotypically bad dresses. Those dresses were not what any Indian girl would wear to a formal event.
In her defence, she's 13 and it was the 90s
This! The 90s were a great decade but we had horrible fashion. And yet gen z keeps trying to bring it back.
My older millennial hubby and I keep saying that we all agreed as a society to leave some of these trends behind and these dang kids are bringing back the worst parts of the fashion! I see more mullets/rat tail hair cuts the last couple of years and just why?! šš
Fashion is cyclical and we rebel against our parents' fashion by emulating fashions they thought were old and tacky.
Saw jncos the other day, he must have been 15 tops
Ah JNCOS...I could fit an entire CD player in my pocket and still have room for the entire world.
The CD would skip with every other step you took, but you put up with it because of the style.
Man, mine had like 15 second skip protection! Funny though, there was a hill going up to my parents house that was just long enough, and just bumpy enough, that it would skip at the very top of the hill every time!
Omgggggg JNCO JEANNNSSSSS I had a knockoff version and thought I was so cool š
God save us from the resurgence of whale tailsā¦
If that's the case, then Neutragena will need to bring back their coin slot moisturizer.
Oh honey, whale tails are definitely already on the upswing
Fashion is marketed in a cycle in order to keep people spending money. Trends have to last just long enough that heavy spenders will buy into them multiple times, which generally lasts 7-10 years, but the money train eventually stops because everyone has bought enough of item "x", everyone that would get haircut "y" has it. So then the industry has to rotate back to the fashions they've been telling you for the last decade were a horrible mistake of the past, because everyone threw things outs, and they need you to start buying again.
I unironically have become super into mullets
Exactly!
Ball length shorts was something I thought was left in the 80ās and now in 2023 they r back.. itās like they purposely took worst trend from every gen
mullets and rattails are SCRUMPTIOUS how dare you
In fairness, I was a teen in the 90s and we listened to Led Zeppelin and wore bell bottoms. It all comes back around.
I was a teen in the 70's and listened to Led Zepplin and wore bell bottoms. š
I was a teen in the 50ās and listened to Led Zeppelin and wore bell bottoms. š
That's amazing! Both you and Led Zeppelin were ahead of your time! š¤£
I was a teen in the 30's and listened to Led Zeppelin and wore bell bottoms. š
Bell bottoms and flares, perfect jeans for boots and platforms. The bell bottoms need a revival, the flares are not enough!
In Gen Z defense Millennials was bringing back 70s and '80s fashion pieces, in which all the people who live through that once already said "PLEASE!! No!!! DON'T!!!" It is a never-ending cycle. š
Millennials brought back good fashion. Gen Z is trying to revive the dreggs! You didnāt see millennials trying to revive the shag haircut, which is the equivalent of what gen z is trying to do.
Ummmmā¦.. do you not remember āthe Rachelā haircut? Yes we did.
The Rachel Haircut is not the same as a shag and I will fight you on that lol.
Okay. In all honestly, I started googling in order to prepare for an all out internet war. And the first thing I found was a million articles about this: https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/sachel-haircut-trend-the-rachel The fucking sachel. I call a truce because I lose. We all lose. The universe loses.
I'm Millennial and I don't really agree. I loved the late 2000s fashion *at the time*, as young people often do get sucked into trends, but in hindsight... lordt. Those fried emo bangs, split ends galore from all the straightening, the super skinny jeans hardly anyone could pull off, the 10 stacked beady bracelets on either wrist for no reason... yeah I was *tragic* babes š It's why I don't really get on Gen Z for their "ugly" fashion. I do think they look a mess, low-key, but I view it almost like a rite of passage for young people go through this experimental fad fashion era.
This is mostly a joke. Iām not making fun of Gen Z so much as cringing at the shit my past self wore. You get old enough it starts to feel like the younger generation is trolling you by making you relive your worst fashion choices on repeat by snarky younger versions of yourself.
Aww ok, sorry I jumped the gun a bit haha I agree it does feel like that. On a slight tangent I was talking to my Gen Z friend at work last week (she's 21) and she was talking about how her and her friends are going to some nostalgic 2010 music night at a club... I might have fainted a little š They're really nostalgic romanticising music that came out when I was 17, I'm officially old moment.
Millennials absolutely did not bring good fashion. Peplum tops? Ultra-low rose jeans? Jeggings? Layering three tank tops on top of each other? Chunky bib statement necklaces in pastels? Chevron everything?
I said they brought good fashion from pervious decades back. Our original choices were massively questionable, hence the comments about 90s fashion being trash.
What did we bring back? Iām thinking of everything I wore / my friends wore as a teen and Iām drawing a blank. Super thin, extra long sleeved shirts, side bangs going across the face, bodycon dresses, baguette purses, owl everything, ponchos is atrocious color combinations (I had two- one was mint and brown (why was this color combination so popular) and the other was red, orange, pink, and yellow). Any help would be appreciated because I canāt think of it. Ballet shoes? I guess thatās one.
You have to remember that millennials span from 1983-1995 we had a pretty wide range of fashion in the generation. Thinking from my 90s childhood cowboy boots, micro-minis, bell bottoms came back into style for a bit, we were big into 60s band t-shirts, acid wash jeans, tie dye. There was a whole host of things millennials brought back. But as I said to someone else Iām not being entirely serious here. Iām laughing about Gen Zs affinity for making me relive some of my worst fashion moments.
I was born in 89, so pretty close to right in the middle of the generation. I also leaned skater / punk as a teen so while I personally wore tons of band shirts, bell bottoms, chuck taylors, mini skirts (which I used to wear over jeans way too often or with the craziest fishnets) etc that was more of me being into the alternative fashion / a subculture than as a staple of what the general fashion of the generation. I wouldnāt equate my high school outfit of a military jacket, Jim Morrison shirt, paired with my torn up jeans, and vans as a staple if Millennial fashion even if I wearing it as a teen in mid2000s. I think subcultures are their own thing that transcend generations.
The mullet: "everytime I try to get out, THEY PULL ME BACK IN!!"
The āparty in the backā acts like a leash.
Kinky.. I like it
I dunno, thereās something that makes me really happy when I see kids walking around in the dumbest, most unflattering outfits ever. Itās like theyāre dressing in whatever they think is fun instead of whatever will make people want to fuck them.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Might me waiting a bit on those. Those had their come back in like 2012 back around the same time those ugly geometric Zack Morris Sweaters made a comeback.
I've seen kids wearing them at my college, probably sooner than you think.
And of all things to bring back from the 80s, did we *really* need to bring back the mullet???
Lmao agreed on the mullets. I for one would be game for 80s hair bands to make a comeback though
Werenāt the movies based in the 2000ās while the books were in the 90ās
Not that I know of. Iām pretty sure both are supposed to take place in the 90s. There is nothing super 2000s esq about the movies that makes me think they changed the time period. I could be wrong though.
I think thereās just some confusion because the vehicles shown are definitely 2000ās vehicles but it could just been a decision where the director said screw it movie is for kids they wonāt care if the cars arenāt the right time period
Yeah Iām pretty sure the directors just said screw-it.
The movies are absolutely set in the time period that they were released (2000s).
James and Lilyās death date is 81 on their headstone in the film so that doesnāt really hold-up.
So are the books tbh. It's always been vaguely annoying to me how the HP fandom has reverse engineered an accurate timeline for the entire series based on one throwaway reference from Nearly Headless Nick's deathday cake when clearly the later books aren't meant to be some sort of 90s period piece at all (case in point: Dudley's Playstation).
I don't care, give me the Saved by the Bell aesthetic
I donāt love the way it looks, but damn is it comfy. Iāve been leaning into my 2004 clothes
Iām all for the return of lots and lots of denim, but most of the rest can stay in the 90s.
I'm definitely NOT trying to bring it back. (And I'm generation z by the way)
That dress screams mid 2000s not 90s at all
Yeah arenāt the movies set a decade forward than the books?
And the same parents that sent her that dress, weāre the same parents that sent Ron those robes
Actually, in the first movie when Harry is reading the article about the Gringotts break in, you can see that the newspaper is dated 2001.
She was also part of the same poor family, so like, was OP expecting couture?
The movies donāt take place in the 90s though
The Potter's gravestone says they died 1981 which would mean it's the 90s. The cars, a newspaper and TVs in the background say it's the 2000's. So it's whatever due to lazy directors.
The books were the 90s. The movies were based in the same years they were filmed in I believe.
Nah, the movies take place same time as books. The 90s.
In the half-blood prince the deatheaters destroy the millennium bridge which was completed in 2000, so Iām not sure how the films could be set in the 90s.
Lazy directing?
Thereās a lot of lazy directing after the first few films.
It was David Yates so yes. Lazy directing.
I'm almost certain they don't. In later movies you constantly see things such as cars which were created in the 2000s.
You litterally see a lcd tv in the coffee shop in deathly hallows part 1 or it could be plasma.
It does appear the movies are supposed to be set in the 90s but the level of mistakes is actually extremely poor and almost amateur, which seems to have created this widespread confusion. I'll just pretend it's in an alternative hybrid universe where 2000s technology was created in the 90s.
The movies aren't set in the 90s, they're roughly set in the years they're released. I think "officially" they're not set in any particular year but in OOTP the boys in the Griffyndor common room are listening to The Ordinary Boys, and in HBP the deatheaters take out the Millennium Bridge which was opened in 2000.
the potter's gravestone specifically says they died in 1981. meaning if harry was 1 when they died and 11 in the first film, it would be set in 1992
And Dudley's primary school certificate says 2001 on. At the end of the day it's irrelevant to debate it because there is conflicting evidence as you point out. However if I *had* to say one way or the other, there's more evidence of it taking place in "present day" at the time of the movies' release than the 90s, even if we disregard things like clothes, haircuts and technology.
It wasn't the 90s... It was the 2000s :-) nevertheless.. modest fashion from Ginny I guess
books were 90s, movies were early oughts
I think all the Weasleys wore hand-me-down dress robes. Ginny wore one of Molly's, the Twins wore Bill and Charlie's. Only Ron had to wear the robes from the Wizarding thrift store. Why couldn't he wear Arthur's?
Knowing Arthur, his "dress robes" are probably a tuxedo, which Molly would deem totally inappropriate.
nah, white tie at least, including top hat
I'm losing it imagining Arthur Weasley in a top hat
You canāt hand something down if you still wear it. Arthurās dress robes from school could also have become Charlieās. Making them gen 3 when the twins got them. Arthurās dress robes from more recent, is like his church suit equivalent. Canāt give that away for sophomore homecoming.
Draco wasn't kidding about that.
Ron was also super tall, and I donāt think Mr. Weasley was in the books, IIRC, he was described as a pretty small man
i thought that ronās robes came from some uncle or someone?
No, Mrs. Weasley bought them secondhand: >āBecause ... well, I had to get yours secondhand, and there wasnāt a lot of choice!ā said Mrs. Weasley, flushing.
oh okay. itās been awhile since i read the books lol
aye in the books is secondhand but in the movies its from his great aunt tessie (or bessie?). It even smells like his great aunt tessie (or bessie).
No theyāre not from her. Ron just says he looks like his great aunt Tessie while wearing them
Maybe his great aunt Tessie was buying her robes in the same secondhand
Or his great aunt Tessie sold it to the shop.
Tessie.
She rockin that [palette from level 4 of NES Tetris](http://www.thealmightyguru.com/Wiki/images/7/70/Tetris_-_NES_-_Palettes.png)
the only dress robes they got right for the Yule ball was Ron's because his were supposed to be ugly. edit: But it was the ninties and she was thirteen of course it was going to be ugly as all hell what do you expect from a child
1. Sheās 13 2. Itās the 90s 3. Itās likely homemadeā¦which means itās subject to Mollyās taste in clothes
I think that last one is the key here. As someone who was 13 in the 90ās, that dress is hideous.
Well the movies take place in the 2000's as there are plenty of inconsistencies with muggle technology, clothing and hairstyles.
you're not completely wrong, not sure why you're being downvoted, I don't know much about fashion, so I'm not gonna comment on that. But the Technology in the movies is a real thing, I specifically remember the big screens in Deathly Hallows. Usually I ignore any inconsistencies in the movies, because to me they're no more than adaptations, not canon in my eyes. But the post was referring to the dress shown in the movies. So it's only fair to talk about this from the perspective of the movies
Because people are basing movie Ginny's appearance off the books. Which yes, there is that to consider but literally if they watch the movies and look at the technology muggles use a lot of it wasn't invented or in popular use until the early 2000s. Hell even the filmmakers confirmed the movies take place from 2001 onward just for simplicity. Yes I know the books take place from 1991-1997. https://www.looper.com/297033/how-the-timeline-differs-between-the-harry-potter-books-and-movies/ Here is some sauce for people who wish to read.
[James and Lily died in 1981 in the movies, too.](https://i.imgur.com/mZWgPUb.png) Last I checked, it wasn't Hogwarts University where 21 year old Harry Potter is starting graduate school, so the movies are definitely set in the 90s. Ginny's dress is ugly either way, though. XD
Yeah they have inconsistent continuity with the movies.
It's really just the small details like that don't matter. It doesn't *matter* that the Dursleys TV is a flat screen in the movies despite being set in the 90s, just like it doesn't matter that in the books Dudley had a Playstation months before they released irl.
With the latter you could argue Vernon imported it. But for the sake of this conversation, I'd argue these details do matter because it shows the movies, which we already know don't follow the books by the letter and thus are somewhat their own continuity, that the timeline of the movies are different. It's irrelevant for the sake of the books, but in the movies this explains Ginny's dress, the hair styles of the cast, their muggle attire, and so many other small details that do not adhere to the books.
Itās also the poshest pronunciation of ghastly on record
She really went for it š¤£ it's *ghaaaaaahstly*
For real. I thought a PokƩmon would show up
!redditSickle
You have given u/venator1995 a Reddit Sickle. u/venator1995 has a total of 0 galleons, 1 sickle, and 0 knuts. ____________ I am a bot. See [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/harrypotter/comments/jnbo49/hi_i_created_the_bot_youve_been_using_to_give/) to learn how to use me.
You just have no concept of Weasley fashion and how on point it actually is!
Tell that to Ron's robes ššš
Ronaldās robes are absolutely fantastic!
Nah...The ugliest dresses were worn by the Patil sisters. Like, couldn't they hire some Indian designer for the Yule Ball scene? They found the plainest dresses that could be worn by someone in an Indian household.
No fr it wasn't enough for them to colonize our homeland they had to insult us with their idea of our fashion too. Their dress robes in the books sounded so pretty. We were robbed.
And fancy. Most westerners dont get to wear gold for a school dance at 14yo. Indian dresses are on another level.
I like it.
Yeah me too lol
It is a cute dress for a 13 year old girl
Right? I don't know what people are on about... She's a kid wearing a kid's dress. It's cute.
13 year olds are the first to get offended when being called ācuteā or ākidā
Itās giving Strawberry Shortcake minus the hat
Still better than what Ron wore. That thing was hideous.
Am I the only one who thinks it's really nice?
I love it!
No, and not just because it's very sweet looking. I think collars and buttons give a little... authority? status? I struggle to find just the right word. Edit: Regality?
I agree. It would look weird on an adult, but on a kid it looks pretty decent.
agreed! I always thought it was sweet.
I love it as well! It's actually one of my favourites from the whole selection. Although I don't know what that says about my taste in fashion...
This subās always coming after my homegirl, while Bonnieās just up there looking sweet as can be in a nice dress.
Meh, better than Ron's.
Shh it's 2000s fashion
*90s
Actually the movies take place during the 2000s but the books take place during the 90s.
Lily and James died in 1981, it says it on their graves. Harry goes to Hogwarts at 11 in 1991 (not 21 in 2001)
Myth born out of all of the anachronisms. James and Lily's grave in DH says they died 1981, it absolutely takes place in the 90s. None of the anachronisms were at all important(even the millennium bridge is easily explained by the book bridge not being real. The important part was it was a muggle bridge, not which bridge specifically) to the plot. They weren't even merely *unimportant* to the plot, they were totally and completely irrelevant plot wise. By this logic the book Goblet of fire *starts* in 1995 and ends in 1996(instead of 1994 and 1995, respectively), seeing as dudley had a playstation. Which is obviously not the case. It's a fictional story where a secret society of wizards exist; it's not a plot hole for its technology to not be 100% accurate to the non-fictional real life version of the time period.
Exactly, the books don't take place in our reality, so little anachronisms are super easy to explain. I think the main point of them taking place in the 90s is just so they don't have to deal with the internet and cell phones becoming mainstream anyhow.
I thought so too. That's why I said that. It's movie Ginny.
I always just chalked this horrible dress to the fact that Molly may have got some of her stuff second hand.
"How poor do you want the Weasleys to be?" "Yes."
To be fair, I thought most of the dresses from the Yule Ball were ugly lol š¤·š»āāļø I never got the obsession over Hermioneās because: 1. The film crew couldnāt even be bothered to read the one sentence that said they were periwinkle and 2. The material and the colour look like the drapes your grandmother had in her house from the 70s/80s.
Itās like sheās in the [AKA sorority](https://aka1908.com).
I actually like that dress. It's pretty to me.
I don't think it's ugly. It's just a regular looking dress for festive occasions
The movies did Ginny bad
Who was the hired costume designer for some of these questionable design choices?! I put the blame on them.š
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
They really were all... not good. And I recall an interview with the designer who went all proud "yeah Cho's dress is white, an Asian mourning color, to foreshadow Cedric death". They all did so little research to make "culturally inspired" dresses and then it overwhelmingly ended up super on the nose.
How tf do you mess up indian dresses in fucking england??? You can't turn your head without seeing shops with beautiful saris.
I loved hermiones dress š
Exactly, all of the customes were hideous. Emma and Bonnie made these dresses look goodš
[This woman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jany_Temime). Nothing in her credits stands out to me for having beautiful costumes.
I wish they had stuck with dress robes for the girls. It could have been really pretty. I did like Fleur's dress, though.
Okay, fashion nerd here, the color palette is very flattering on her, but the neckline kills the dress. Something with little ruffle sleeves instead of that Taco Bell neckline would look much better, specifically off the shoulder. Mint and pastel pink look lovely together (if itās the proper shades) but I think pastel yellow and pastel purple would look better together. Also, the bright pink band is too bulky and should either be thinner or removed, maybe with a fabric flower made out of the excess. Also, sheās thirteen and it was the 90ās, but that doesnāt excuse the awful neckline.
Yellow and purple, really? Can't think of many folks who could pull that off..
Yellow and purple go really well together since theyāre complimentary colors on the color wheel, but I can understand that not a lot of people can pull it off, but I think that she could
Sheās a redhead. All those colors together makes her look clownish
It has "Molly made this" written all over it.
Lime green actually compliments her dark red hair and pale skin. It's the pink bodice and red sash that clashes and tanks the look.
Teenager doesnāt have the best sense of fashion, how shocking
Eh. It doesn't look totally inappropriate for a 13 year old in the mid-90's. Especially for a society that is a bit more old fashioned in the clothes department. It's got 50's vibes, so maybe it's supposed to have been Molly's.
Letās be real, all the costuming was tragic for that film
Honestly all the costumes at the ball were hideous š (except Hermione's)
Thatās because the directors favored hermione. Rolls eyes.
To be fair, GoF was probably the Movie with the most aweful costumes overall... In the first task the supposed wizzarding flying ropes are clearly visible to be a cheap raincoat type of garment, this trend started with the PoA decision to not have school ropes on Hogwarts grounds and continued in GoF...
When you are lower middle class like Ginny you can say āIām never wearing thatā but it doesnāt matter at all, you have to wear whatever you have to wear. I wore a piece of extension cord as a belt for a while.
You say that, but I kind of dig it
Compared to the dress worn by their Great-Aunt Tessy, this dress was beautiful. Compared to Fleur or Hermioneās dress, yeah this dress isnāt as great. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder and thatās a lot of eyes.
I mean it should makes you terrified about what the one she turned down looked like.
well *I* think it's cute.
They wanted to emphasise Hermiones transformation
Book Ginny would never
Itās not that bad lol.
Iād wear and rock the shit out of that dress
she looks like strawberry shortcake
nah donāt do strawberry shortcake like thatš
Kids toothpaste
Looking like a watermelon sour patch
Her dress looks like that bowl of hard candies that old people would have that look like they would be soft and squishy but are mega hard chalk candy
The colours look like a 3d program where the colours are just random flat colours before the rendered result. This looks unrendered
The pastels remind me of a honeydukes candy
Out here looking like MintBerry Crunch
better than Ron's
Is that a bad dress? Asking for the men.
Showed this to my gf: āshe looks like cotton candyā
Omg I love it hahaha, but at the same time I can see how people could find it ugly
I think itās pretty
[She pull up lookin like this](https://eu-images.contentstack.com/v3/assets/blt781c383a1983f673/bltad4620b2c52b41ab/621c905ca4eb2753a95827f4/StrawberryShortcake.jpg?width=734&auto=webp&format=png)
Fans have made great designs based on the books, Im sure there has to be a Ginny somewhere
Someone on the design team thought "what if we dressed her like a 50's housewife?" Meanwhile Draco gets a book accurate look and is invisible outside of him being in the dance crowd on occasion. Just an awful adaptation. For more reason that dresses certainly, but their low effort look just adds to the negativity
Facts
That neon green tule thing over the pink skirt š Itās SO bad. It didnāt go with her skin tone at all either.
I always really hated Cho's dress. She looks like an old japanese lady and the silver makes me offended because of the bronze vs silver in ravenclaw. #bringbackthebronze
Jay. Sus. That's a crime. It looks like an anime nightmare fever dream.
I think they deliberately made all the girls wear horrible dress to make Hermione shine out more? The Patil sisters also wore _very_ stereotypically bad dresses. Those dresses were not what any Indian girl would wear to a formal event.
Same with Cho Chang.
You people really call that āuglyā? I see nothing wrong with that dress š¤Ø
It looks like something a 6 year old would wear but it's not ugly enough for this
I hated movie Hermione so much more than this. I do agree this too is pretty harsh.
Why yāall hating on my girl Ginny ššš
It's still not ugly as what Patil twins wore. Looked incredibly simple and racist.